Which would you choose - Wideangle EOS lens

[phil_jarrett]

Hello forum,

 

I want to buy a wide-angle lens for my EOS 20D. I've got to the point where my

28-105 just isn't wide enough, and would like to go wider. Obviously, L series

glass would be great, but I can't afford it, not even on HP... so I've narrowed

it down to a couple of choices:

 

Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8 - 4 DI

 

Sigma 12 - 24 mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM

 

I like both of these because they're not digital-only lenses, so I can use them

on my EOS film bodies too.

 

Does anyone have any preference, or something I've overlooked in my searching?

 

Many thanks,

 

Phil

[John Crowe]

If you can afford the Sigma you can also afford the Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L.

 

 

If 28mm is wide enough on your film camera then 17mm will be wide enough on your 20D, making the Canon lens acceptable, and the one I would recommend first.

 

 

However if you want to go into the more challenging superwide range then I would go with the Sigma 12-24.

[jcolwell]

I second John's suggestion about the 17-40L.

[peter_houtmeyers]

The sigma 12-24ex is the widest lens available that will fit on a fullframe. I have never used it but i have heard a lot of good critique about it on forums.The part that i do not like about it is that it only can take drop-in gelatin filters. The Canon 17-40 is a very fine solid build lens that is very sharp. But when used on a 1.6crop body like your 20D its not that wide.I have attached a photo for comparison between 12mm ,17mm and 28mm

[preston_merchant]

The EFS 10-22 is the best available wide angle for a 1.6x crop camera. The downsides are that it's slow (3.5/4.5 aperture) and that it's a little pricey ($674 at B&H), but it easily solves the whole wide angle problem on the 20D and 30D. Of course, you can only use it on your 20D and 30D (and Rebel) . . .

[m3rdpwr]

The 17-40L stays on my 20D almost all of the time.

 

I only swap it out for primes (50/85) when I do portrait work.

Unless I have 2 or more people in the photo in which the 17-40L stays on...

 

As mentioned, the 17-40L will work on full frame as well...

 

-Mario

[steve_dunn2]

<p>First, you need to decide how wide you want to go. The two lenses you mention cover significantly different ranges, and particularly so on a 1.6-crop body where one of them is merely a wide-to-normal zoom and the other is an ultrawide zoom. Some people wouldn't want to live without an ultrawide lens; others wouldn't know what to do with one (I'm closer to the latter category myself).</p>

 

<p>I don't know the prices of those two, but if the suggestion is correct that the Canon 17-40/4L USM is comparable in price, then I certainly agree you should be considering it. Like many other 20D users, I use it as my wide zoom lens, and it's in fact the lens I use the most on the 20D. It's a very good lens, and I don't believe you will be disappointed if you choose it. I only used it once on film so I can't give you a solid evaluation of it as a film lens, but I was happy with how it performed there, too.</p>

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Of course, you can only use it on your 20D and 30D (and Rebel) . . .</i></p>...which would also likely be why Phil didn't consider it. Did you bother to read his post?

[synnacdesign]

I concur with what has been answered to your question so far. If you can afford the Sigma then the Canon 17-40 is in your price range to and at that moment the quality better choice. However if you are looking for a wider angle that 27/28mm then I would strongly suggest you go for the sigma 12-24mm.

 

If you are willing to go pure DSLR lens then I would strongly suggest getting the Canon 10-22mm.

 

Peter: thanks for the great comparison photo:)

[anson_ko]

super wide: Sigma 12 - 24 mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM

canon EFS lens only works with 20D, 30D. FF camera like 5D, 1Ds won't fit. This is something you need to consider unless you want to sell all the EFS lenses when you switch to FF bodies.

[preston_merchant]

Yeah, I "bothered" to read his post. It's clear he's searching for options. I listed one. Last time I checked the point of this forum was to be helpful.

[the the]

If you are considering the Tamron 17-35mm, why not consider the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 as well? Perhaps you don't need that range, but it can't do much harm to have a more versatile lens. I don't know how its image quality compares to the others, but it sounds quite acceptable.

[phil_jarrett]

Thanks for all your thoughts... I didn't even consider a EF 'L' series because I automatically assumed that they'd be right out of my price range.

 

Going the EF-S route would offer cheaper alternatives, but as I use both film and digital in roughly equal measure, I don't want to spend good money on an optic that I cannot use on my film bodies, and when the price drops a little further, I'm going to buy a 5D... so... there's the answer to that one.

 

The EF 17-40mm f4 'L' USM offers me exactly what I'm after in terms of range... I might give that one a try.

 

Thanks again,

 

Phil

[images_in_light_north_west]

one more for the 17-40

[robert lee]

This is only one data point, but my experience with the Tamron AF 17-35mm was terrible. It was tremendously soft. The lens did not match my 24-70 f2.8L (in the overlapping focal ranges) until f11. The 17-40 f4L that replaced it was much better in all repects: optically, build, and usability.

[john_baker4]

Contrary to what some have said above the 12-24 is as you point out the only truly wide that will work on 1.6/1.3 and FF cameras. I have one and I must admit I am very impressed with it! The 17-40L is a great lens on FF but at 1.6 is less convincing as it comes out a not very exciting 27.2-64mm - The 12-24 Siggy with the 1.6 factor becomes a more interesting 19.2-38.4mm

 

The Canon EFS are fine if you want to go that route, but if you want to end up at FF or 1.3 factor (1D Mark IIN) the Siggy is currently the only way to do it.

 

The Sigma is quite interesting as it has a double lens hood system, removing the end cap allows the fitting of 82mm filterers, this should work fine on a 1.6 factor camera, for FF and 1.3 you remove a second ring revealing a petal hood ? unfortunately this means you cannot really use a filter on the front of the camera. However, there is a facility to fit rear filters if required.

 

Picture wise it is a very good performer at times it is great, however, it can be let down at time by being a little soft at the edges, but this improves by stopping down. Get the lens in its sweet spot f8/f11 and it produces nice pictures. A couple of examples below... [image]http://static.flickr.com/125/322542645_d7763cf152_o.jpg[/image]

 

[image]http://static.flickr.com/124/322542651_95deb147b1_o.jpg[/image]

 

[image]http://static.flickr.com/143/322547365_eb8e11b45a_o.jpg[/image]

[david_halterman]

Check out the Tokina 12-24...I understand it is built like a tank, takes front filters, and

has great optics, better than the Sigma at least

[dan_roche]

I'm on a tight budget too, but live on bologna sandwiches for a while if you have to and get the 17-40 f/4L. You love it on your 20D and your film bodies too.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Last time I checked the point of this forum was to be helpful.</i></p>Agreed, but you weren't being helpful, because your option contradicted the original poster's declared preference.

[w_t1]

i've used Canon's 20mm prime lens for well over 10 years now, I'm happy with it on film, On my 10d it's less attractive. Some people don't like it, but I find it acceptable around f5.6, but I mainly shoot black and white film in the film category. I think some folks use some of the olympus primes on eos bodies, with adaptors.

[yakim_peled1]

IIRC I read here that the Sigma 10-20 stops vignetting on FF at about 14mm but I really must join the chorus: Get the 17-40/4.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mike t.]

If you don't need autofocus, consider alternative lenses for extra wide work. I just bought a zuiko 21/3.5 with adapter and a circ pol filter for $350 that is at least as sharp as my 35L, if not sharper. The best wide zoom out there is reputed to be Nikon's AFS 17-35/2.8, also easily adapted to EOS bodies, but it's $1,000+ used.

[sheryl_bury_michals]

Phil,

 

another vote from me on the 17-40. I just got one 2 days ago, and already it's been a godsend for the shoots I'm currently doing for a political candidate here in Chicago. It also takes great skyline shots. The fact that I bought this over the Canon 10-22 is that I can use it on my Rebel film SLR's. I know I've only had it 2 days but it's a lot better than the 18-55 kit lens I got with my 30D.

 

I think you'll be happy with it if you decide to get it - like everyone else on this post.

 

sheryl